Calculating DV is "hard"??

[GoSlash27]

Expanding on that thought (and this *is* definitely bragging, but dammit... I'm proud of it!)...

My first Apollo style moon shot was accomplished without any spreadsheets at all. I optimized the design on paper and ran all the calculations using a slide rule; a Pickett 120 like this one:

Did I enjoy doing that? You bet I did! It's one of the neatest things I've ever done!

Best,

-Slashy

[Red Iron Crown]

Returning to optimization: in my humble opinion, having a spreadsheet to automatically calculate the optimum spaceship/staging/TWR/deltaV/everything takes the fun out of the game, though, i would understand, if part of the fun for you was writing the code/making the spreadsheet template that would do those calculations/designs for you

That's a completely valid viewpoint. Calculation is not necessary at all in KSP, throwing together a rocket and hoping for the best is a perfectly legitimate play style that many enjoy, including some who do more "serious" missions. It's all about what's fun for the player.

Personally, I greatly prefer more calculation in my designs. I have found enough ways to foul up a mission without needing to add "attempted mission with craft mathematically incapable of completing it" to the list. That and I enjoy learning more rocket science and figuring out better ways to optimize. (Most of the time, sometimes I want to make silly things and make them explode.)

Ultimately, it is up to the player how much rocket science they wish to learn. I think, though, that Slashy's point was that no one should avoid learning it because it is "too hard", because in KSP the basic calculations are within the grasp of any reasonably intelligent person who wishes to try. KSP rocket science does not require advanced math or physics education, it just requires some grade school math skills and a willingness to learn.

[Jouni]

At present, you are right, it is easier to substitute X fuel tank for Y fuel tank in a spreadsheet than in stock VAB.

However, if you use tweakscale (or if ever stock changed such that you only had one "fuel tank" part and used tweakables to adjust texture/length/diameter/fuel-type etc...) then VAB would be equivalent to a spreadsheet, no?

In that particular case, yes, but not with the Eve lander example.

The real power of spreadsheets comes from flexibility. As soon as you notice a repeating pattern somewhere, you can take advantage of it, even if nobody had thought about it before. It could take an hour to hack together the core functionality of a feature. Making it 90% finished, which is good enough for a new mod, might take a day. Spending a week on polishing the implementation could make it 99% ready – good enough for a beta KSP or an established mod. Getting it 99.9% finished, which people generally expect a few patches after the 1.0 release, might take an entire month. This is why the VAB will never have all the useful features for designing rockets a spreadsheet has.

[GoSlash27]

*snip* I think, though, that Slashy's point was that no one should avoid >dissuade others from< learning it because it is "too hard", because in KSP the basic calculations are within the grasp of any reasonably intelligent person who wishes to try. KSP rocket science does not require advanced math or physics education, it just requires some grade school math skills and a willingness to learn.

With that correction, I am 100% fully in agreement with everything you've said here.

I have no interest in trying to convince others to mess with aspects they'd just as soon not be bothered with. I'm just saying that we also shouldn't discourage people from messing with aspects that they *want* to be bothered with.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 10, 2014 by GoSlash27

[Slam_Jones]

I'll put it this way: I hate math. I suck at it. Just terrible. If KSP required me to do math, well, it would stop being "that awesome space game" and turn into "that lame math game," and I wouldn't play it. Plain and simple.

I enjoy video games. I do not enjoy math. Why mix the two?

[GoSlash27]

I'll put it this way: I hate math. I suck at it. Just terrible. If KSP required me to do math, well, it would stop being "that awesome space game" and turn into "that lame math game," and I wouldn't play it. Plain and simple.

I enjoy video games. I do not enjoy math. Why mix the two?

Nobody's saying you have to. *You* are free to play the game in whatever way you enjoy it the most.

All's I'm sayin' is that the fact that *you* don't want to mess with the math (which is perfectly valid) doesn't mean you should tell others to avoid it if that's what they're interested in.

Best,

-Slashy

[Slam_Jones]

Nobody's saying you have to. *You* are free to play the game in whatever way you enjoy it the most.

All's I'm sayin' is that the fact that *you* don't want to mess with the math (which is perfectly valid) doesn't mean you should tell others to avoid it if that's what they're interested in.

Best,

-Slashy

That's all well and good, but when did *I* tell folks to avoid it?

I guess what I'm saying is, couldn't you have, you know, talked to the people this must be directed at, or, I dunno, put it in the threads where such suggestions are made?

It just seems your point is getting pretty muddled here. It's almost like (not saying that you are, just that it seems it) you're just trying to say "Hey, I can do math! What's wrong with you?"

Edited December 10, 2014 by Slam_Jones

[GoSlash27]

*You* personally didn't and I never claimed that *you* did. *You* merely raised a point in this thread and I responded to it. If the shoe doesn't fit, then just chuck that sucker aside.

And no, such things cannot be addressed in the threads in which they are raised without hopelessly derailing them, which is why this thread is here.

Best,

-Slashy

[purpletarget]

Slashy,

Honestly you're preaching to the choir afaic. I've seen the same thing frequently.

Someone will ask "How do I calculate whapitysplash?"...and the first 3-6 answers are "get this mod to tell you!". ...as well intentioned as the advice may be, it's not really what they asked for.

If they asked "How do I get the game to display whapitysplash while I'm building/flying?" then the mod answer is far more relevant.

That said, that would make most of the beginning of this thread a somewhat rhetorical question itself.

KSP has all the tools within it to allow the math to be take easily from the interface, and applied to a scratchpad or a spreadsheet...so if someone asks how to calculate something, the best answer will be to help them locate and understand the formula's to find their answers.

[Xavven]

I agree a spreadsheet is better for constrained optimization, but, for using trial and error to design a craft (which is the case i thought we were talking about), i think spreadsheets and mods to calculate delta-V are at the very least equals, though i think VAB is more user-friendly.

Returning to optimization: in my humble opinion, having a spreadsheet to automatically calculate the optimum spaceship/staging/TWR/deltaV/everything takes the fun out of the game, though, i would understand, if part of the fun for you was writing the code/making the spreadsheet template that would do those calculations/designs for you

As a spreadsheet user myself, I feel qualified to say that there are questions a spreadsheet can't answer for you that trial and error can. I wouldn't put myself in the "don't bother with spreadsheets" camp, not by a long shot, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, my personal delta-v calculator has suggested mathematically optimal fuel and engine combinations that are less optimal for different reasons entirely. For example, it makes my lander taller (and therefore harder to land on an incline) compared to an alternate design. Or it doesn't fit in the stack as well. Or there's not enough surface area to attach my science jr. and goo experiments, etc.Part of the fun is figuring out which tools to use where, and some common sense, too.

[Dwight_js]

This is a slightly off-topic question, but since we seem to have a few "spread-sheet and slide-rule" types together in one spot, I'm wondering if you all would enjoy this as a game-play mechanic.

How would you like it if in the early stages of the game the statistics provided by KSP were intentionally incorrect to reflect the lack of knowledge of the Kerbals. Would you still have fun, if after working out the math you could still have a mission fail because the numbers are just a best guess by Kerbal scientists and engineers?

[Seyvern]

It's not difficult, but it's time-consuming, and difficult for a layman to remember. I've never liked math, and I don't want to take several minutes out of my playing time and a bite out of my crappy computer's memory to bring up the formula and calculator, figure out which numbers go where and probably get them wrong...

That's not to say that it isn't useful. If you're using KSP in a classroom, it can even be fun because the student will get to see the result of his calculation. But for an ordinary gamer...

I find this comment amusing - I'm a Ph.D. physicist and work at a national laboratory. I would find this tedious! I don't play games (even geeky ones that i adore like KSP) to scribble down numbers on a pad of paper and work them out to fly my ship. I expect any reasonable piece of software to do that for me, and if it doesn't exist, I'd make it myself. In fact, I suspect the only people who want to play the game 'this way' are people who don't actually do this stuff day to day but were moderately interested in math/science in high school.

[GoSlash27]

This is a slightly off-topic question, but since we seem to have a few "spread-sheet and slide-rule" types together in one spot, I'm wondering if you all would enjoy this as a game-play mechanic.

How would you like it if in the early stages of the game the statistics provided by KSP were intentionally incorrect to reflect the lack of knowledge of the Kerbals. Would you still have fun, if after working out the math you could still have a mission fail because the numbers are just a best guess by Kerbal scientists and engineers?

Honestly, not so much IMO.

The game is already as difficult as it needs to be in stock form. Doing that would make the game less enjoyable for everyone, whether they are personally doing the math or relying on a mod to do it for them.

Doing that would force me to either a) pad my requirements to cover the errors or gin up ways to pin down the correct numbers on my own.

Either way, less time spent making rockets go all 'splodey'.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

As a spreadsheet user myself, I feel qualified to say that there are questions a spreadsheet can't answer for you that trial and error can. I wouldn't put myself in the "don't bother with spreadsheets" camp, not by a long shot, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, my personal delta-v calculator has suggested mathematically optimal fuel and engine combinations that are less optimal for different reasons entirely. For example, it makes my lander taller (and therefore harder to land on an incline) compared to an alternate design. Or it doesn't fit in the stack as well. Or there's not enough surface area to attach my science jr. and goo experiments, etc.Part of the fun is figuring out which tools to use where, and some common sense, too.

That is actually the core of the most fun part of the game for me; knowing when to "ad-lib" from the script due to special circumstances such as the ones you've provided here.

In those cases, having knowledge of how the math works from experience and being able to work the problem on-the-fly on a napkin is actually *more* valuable to keeping you on track, not less.

You just say, "yeah, that engine is better, but I have to use this one because (insert reason here), and I'll need *scribble, scribble* this many engines and this tank to pull it off." Then you just plug in the numbers and move along.

That's actually how I made my 52 ton Eve package work; the maths said I needed to go a different way for best results, but the aspect ratio wasn't workable and I didn't have a spreadsheet for the situation. Thankfully, I had experience working the math the hard way.

KER wouldn't have helped me there.

Best,

-Slashy

[MockKnizzle]

Dwight_js, I firmly believe that deliberately lying to the player about critical game mechanics is terrible design and should be avoided at all costs. I'd rather the game just not tell me anything than have it give me false information.

[arkie87]

That is actually the core of the most fun part of the game for me; knowing when to "ad-lib" from the script due to special circumstances such as the ones you've provided here.

In those cases, having knowledge of how the math works from experience and being able to work the problem on-the-fly on a napkin is actually *more* valuable to keeping you on track, not less.

You just say, "yeah, that engine is better, but I have to use this one because (insert reason here), and I'll need *scribble, scribble* this many engines and this tank to pull it off." Then you just plug in the numbers and move along.

That's actually how I made my 52 ton Eve package work; the maths said I needed to go a different way for best results, but the aspect ratio wasn't workable and I didn't have a spreadsheet for the situation. Thankfully, I had experience working the math the hard way.

KER wouldn't have helped me there.

Best,

-Slashy

I actually think KER would have been perfect for this situation. You just illustrated an example where your spreadsheet template didnt work due to unforeseen circumstances (such as aspect ratio). Thus, you had to revise the design using your experience. You now have two choices:

(1) Make a new spreadsheet template, taking into account the unforeseen circumstance, to see if your revised design is going to work

(2) Build it and use KER to see if it will work

I think #2 is easier/lazier, since, as you repeatedly point out, a spreadsheet template will only be good for a very narrow set of design configurations (though it is more useful within this set of design configurations), and so, you will end up making many templates.

Once again, I can fully understand if that's the way you prefer to play, since I can see it being fun to make the templates. Personally, I would find it fun to write a code (mod) that can calculate deltaV, rather than using a spreadsheet

Edited December 11, 2014 by arkie87

[arkie87]

Dwight_js, I firmly believe that deliberately lying to the player about critical game mechanics is terrible design and should be avoided at all costs. I'd rather the game just not tell me anything than have it give me false information.

It would be kinda funny though... perhaps someone can make a mod that does this, and you could stealthily install it on friends' GameData folder on april fools day!

And while you're at it, install a random failures mod as well

Edited December 11, 2014 by arkie87

[rkman]

Lots of things are easy once you know how to. But it does not take much to realize that most people never use integrals or logarithms.

Can they learn? Sure, but it is in fact hard until they have learned, and requiring to learn math just to play a game is a bit much to ask.

[AbhChallenger]

Expanding on that thought (and this *is* definitely bragging, but dammit... I'm proud of it!)...

My first Apollo style moon shot was accomplished without any spreadsheets at all. I optimized the design on paper and ran all the calculations using a slide rule; a Pickett 120 like this one:

http://www.sliderules.info/collection/10inch/030/1034-pickett-120-02.jpg

Did I enjoy doing that? You bet I did! It's one of the neatest things I've ever done!

Best,

-Slashy

*Golfclap*

So again. Why is okay to judge people that don't care to break out a slide rule?

[cantab]

A slide rule is a device for multiplying two and two and getting 3.9999999999...

Any, display wrong values is a very bad idea in any game. Displaying absent or explictly vague values, on the other hand, isn't so unreasonable. But I'm not sure things like uncertain thusts or Isp's are a good idea because the game is tough enough as it is.

[GoSlash27]

*Golfclap*

So again. Why is okay to judge people that don't care to break out a slide rule?

You must've missed posts 17, 34, 45, 62, 74,79, and 81. If you'd read them, you wouldn't be asking this question.

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

A slide rule is a device for multiplying two and two and getting 3.9999999999...

Actually, it's the opposite. Calculators and spreadsheets will give you incorrect answers to a very high resolution. Slide rules will get you within .1% of the correct answer and not tell you where the decimal is supposed to go.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

I actually think KER would have been perfect for this situation. You just illustrated an example where your spreadsheet template didnt work due to unforeseen circumstances (such as aspect ratio). Thus, you had to revise the design using your experience. You now have two choices:

(1) Make a new spreadsheet template, taking into account the unforeseen circumstance, to see if your revised design is going to work

(2) Build it and use KER to see if it will work

I think #2 is easier/lazier, since, as you repeatedly point out, a spreadsheet template will only be good for a very narrow set of design configurations (though it is more useful within this set of design configurations), and so, you will end up making many templates.

Once again, I can fully understand if that's the way you prefer to play, since I can see it being fun to make the templates. Personally, I would find it fun to write a code (mod) that can calculate deltaV, rather than using a spreadsheet

Actually, using KER would not be preferable since it would require you to actually build the vehicle just to see if your adjustment is workable. Only takes a few minutes to run the equation by hand, whereas it would take a good deal longer to fire up KSP and actually build the vehicle.

As a bonus, I don't actually have to be sitting in front of my home computer to design a mission. That means that when I *am* playing KSP, I'm spending less time mucking about in the VAB and more time flying.

Again, not telling you that you "should" do things any way other than the way you want, but doing the math gives players very powerful advantages that KER can't match. No way I would be able to build vehicles as cheap and efficient by trial and error in the VAB.

As a bad analogy, mods like KER are like a basic set of hand tools. Nuthin' wrong with using them if that's your preference and you can get by just fine with them. But the rocket equation is like a machine shop. People who learn to work with it can create much more powerful tools than the ones that come in the KER kit, which allows them to do things they couldn't otherwise do.

Not everyone wants to be a machinist, nor should they... but those who express an interest in how the machine shop works should not be dissuaded from messing with it.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 11, 2014 by GoSlash27

[tablesix]

You guys know you don't actually even have to sum all the parts right? Take two steps: Drain all the fuel from your tanks, take it to the launch pad, and look at its mass on the info tab from the orbit screen. Then, do the same thing when the tanks are full (or the other way around). These are your dry and total masses respectively. so it just boils down to plugging in

dV=9.82*I_sp*ln(dry/total)

Still harder probably slightly harder than mechjeb, but basically quick and easy.

[arkie87]

Actually, using KER would not be preferable since it would require you to actually build the vehicle just to see if your adjustment is workable. Only takes a few minutes to run the equation by hand, whereas it would take a good deal longer to fire up KSP and actually build the vehicle.

Not sure if i agree with that comparison. Either

(a) you design in a spreadsheet: realize the answer wont work, use your intuition to guess at a new solution, and then redesign the spreadsheet/modify the equations to tackle this new problem

or

( you design in KSP VAB itself: you realize the answer wont work, use your intuition to guess at a new solution, and then build it in the VAB using the existing spacecraft as a template.

I think ( should be faster!

As a bonus, I don't actually have to be sitting in front of my home computer to design a mission. That means that when I *am* playing KSP, I'm spending less time mucking about in the VAB and more time flying.

I can agree with this, and this alone is a huge advantage of using spreadsheets